![]() | Tau Ceti is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2011. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
|
|
...Would it be fair to say that Tau Ceti has itself become a widely recognized traditional name? It's been used in enough fictional back stories now (e.g., War of the Worlds (2005 film)) that it's probably the most famous star out there now after Barnard's Star and the Alpha Centauri system.
Are there even other names for it? Mark Stimmel ( talk) 15:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This recently added section is unsourced and appears to be composed of trivia. The topic of Tau Ceti in fiction is already an article, which is also unsourced and full of trivia. As the star and science fiction appear to be the only common themes, I think the subject can be summarized in a single sentence and the content of the section can be moved to the other article with little impact here. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 17:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
It has asteroids and comets nearby,so a habitable planet may be bombarded by asteroids and comets. -- Alexrybak ( talk) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
News in France emerging about discovery of 5 planets, including one in habitable zone. News well sourced, with couple of scientists involved being quoted, and name of Journal given in the news source that will publish the discovery.-- Exsaol ( talk) 01:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
What's a more meaningful unit in common usage? Saying "x hs of observation" isn't very informative and should have a parenthetical reference in commonly used time units. 69.243.13.102 ( talk) 16:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like another Richontaban fake star name flying around!! Verification please. Dead links won't suffice! Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 11:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
An anonymous editor added data for a sixth planet to a system in which there are five suspected planets. Can the data be reconciled? Praemonitus ( talk) 17:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Reference 6 data supported a five planet system with either 168 or 315 days period for the 4th planet, but not both. The 168 days period was computed to be more likely. The wide gap between 168 and 630 days suggests either a small planet that was not ruled out, or more likely an asteroid belt with substantial fragments in asymmetrical distribution that the reference did not discuss. The reference made serious effort to include a small planet at 315 day period, but failed on two accounts. First the 6 planet model found a 1300 day period and a 168 day period, but the 315 day period was absent. Second the stability calculations showed that 168 days and 315 days periods would interfere with each other, tending to prevent the smaller mass from forming a conventional planet. The reference did not rule out the possibility of smaller planets in the system.
The study of 315 days period is important in that it resides in the middle of the habitable zone. It would be a monumental finding if an earth like planet of less than 2 earth masses could be found there. The researchers tried hard to find a habitable planet at 315 day period, but they were careful to avoid mistakes. The data did not support a 315 day period for a major planet. Astrojed ( talk) 21:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tau Ceti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
At phys.org, at arXiv. 4 planets are confirmed. -- mfb ( talk) 20:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Tau Ceti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
An IP editor is repeatedly changing the article to change the spectral class of Tau Ceti from G8 to K1. The reference we have cited (and my own textbooks) specify G8. Anyone know what's going on here? Tarl N. ( discuss) 01:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if Tau Ceti d or i should be included in the planet box. I know I made the edits, but considering what happened with Proxima d, maybe we should err on the side of caution. TheWhistleGag ( talk) 21:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I have added research that may support the existence of Tau Ceti i, if only indirectly. It was featured in the news and shows that dry super-Earths tend to have Jovian companions. While it may not be the most fascinating, and it is not a direct confirmation of the planet, I felt it was something just to throw out there. TheWhistleGag ( talk) 23:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
New paper An Integrated Analysis with Predictions on the Architecture of the τ Ceti Planetary System, Including a Habitable Zone Planet https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.14675.pdf 2600:8804:4904:8A00:4D68:99B3:D01E:254B ( talk) 00:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The redirect
Tau Ceit has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 4 § Tau Ceit until a consensus is reached. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
14:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The 2017 paper was not a refinement by the same team which published the candidates in 2012, there are some shared authors but that is the extent of it. Also nowhere does it confirm e and f as any more than candidates, they are merely the only two candidates from the 2012 paper recovered in 2017. Certainly robust candidates but this does not mean confirmed planets. I have updated the table accordingly as well. Xiphosura Talk∞ Edits 02:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Tau Ceti is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2011. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
|
|
...Would it be fair to say that Tau Ceti has itself become a widely recognized traditional name? It's been used in enough fictional back stories now (e.g., War of the Worlds (2005 film)) that it's probably the most famous star out there now after Barnard's Star and the Alpha Centauri system.
Are there even other names for it? Mark Stimmel ( talk) 15:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This recently added section is unsourced and appears to be composed of trivia. The topic of Tau Ceti in fiction is already an article, which is also unsourced and full of trivia. As the star and science fiction appear to be the only common themes, I think the subject can be summarized in a single sentence and the content of the section can be moved to the other article with little impact here. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 17:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
It has asteroids and comets nearby,so a habitable planet may be bombarded by asteroids and comets. -- Alexrybak ( talk) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
News in France emerging about discovery of 5 planets, including one in habitable zone. News well sourced, with couple of scientists involved being quoted, and name of Journal given in the news source that will publish the discovery.-- Exsaol ( talk) 01:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
What's a more meaningful unit in common usage? Saying "x hs of observation" isn't very informative and should have a parenthetical reference in commonly used time units. 69.243.13.102 ( talk) 16:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like another Richontaban fake star name flying around!! Verification please. Dead links won't suffice! Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 11:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
An anonymous editor added data for a sixth planet to a system in which there are five suspected planets. Can the data be reconciled? Praemonitus ( talk) 17:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Reference 6 data supported a five planet system with either 168 or 315 days period for the 4th planet, but not both. The 168 days period was computed to be more likely. The wide gap between 168 and 630 days suggests either a small planet that was not ruled out, or more likely an asteroid belt with substantial fragments in asymmetrical distribution that the reference did not discuss. The reference made serious effort to include a small planet at 315 day period, but failed on two accounts. First the 6 planet model found a 1300 day period and a 168 day period, but the 315 day period was absent. Second the stability calculations showed that 168 days and 315 days periods would interfere with each other, tending to prevent the smaller mass from forming a conventional planet. The reference did not rule out the possibility of smaller planets in the system.
The study of 315 days period is important in that it resides in the middle of the habitable zone. It would be a monumental finding if an earth like planet of less than 2 earth masses could be found there. The researchers tried hard to find a habitable planet at 315 day period, but they were careful to avoid mistakes. The data did not support a 315 day period for a major planet. Astrojed ( talk) 21:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tau Ceti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
At phys.org, at arXiv. 4 planets are confirmed. -- mfb ( talk) 20:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Tau Ceti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
An IP editor is repeatedly changing the article to change the spectral class of Tau Ceti from G8 to K1. The reference we have cited (and my own textbooks) specify G8. Anyone know what's going on here? Tarl N. ( discuss) 01:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if Tau Ceti d or i should be included in the planet box. I know I made the edits, but considering what happened with Proxima d, maybe we should err on the side of caution. TheWhistleGag ( talk) 21:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I have added research that may support the existence of Tau Ceti i, if only indirectly. It was featured in the news and shows that dry super-Earths tend to have Jovian companions. While it may not be the most fascinating, and it is not a direct confirmation of the planet, I felt it was something just to throw out there. TheWhistleGag ( talk) 23:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
New paper An Integrated Analysis with Predictions on the Architecture of the τ Ceti Planetary System, Including a Habitable Zone Planet https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.14675.pdf 2600:8804:4904:8A00:4D68:99B3:D01E:254B ( talk) 00:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The redirect
Tau Ceit has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 4 § Tau Ceit until a consensus is reached. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
14:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The 2017 paper was not a refinement by the same team which published the candidates in 2012, there are some shared authors but that is the extent of it. Also nowhere does it confirm e and f as any more than candidates, they are merely the only two candidates from the 2012 paper recovered in 2017. Certainly robust candidates but this does not mean confirmed planets. I have updated the table accordingly as well. Xiphosura Talk∞ Edits 02:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)